[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33171-33176]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15242]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9980-73--Region 4]
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund
Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site
(Site) located in Whitehouse, Florida, from the National Priorities
List (NPL) and requests public comments on this proposed action. This
site is also known as the Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits Site. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Florida (State),
through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), have
determined that all appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other
than operations and maintenance, monitoring and five-year reviews, have
been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions
under Superfund.
DATES: Comments must be received by August 16, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1983-0002 by one of the following methods:
(1) http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
(2) Email: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager,
[email protected].
(3) Mail: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager, Superfund
Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
(4) Hand delivery: USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8960. Attention: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project Manager,
Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch. Hours of Operation:
Monday to Friday 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Phone: 404-562-8819.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1983-0002. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The
http://www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at:
(1) USEPA Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8909,
Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Contact Tina Terrell
404-562-8835; and
(2) West Regional Jacksonville Public Library, 1425 Chaffee Rd. S,
Jacksonville, FL 32221, Monday-
[[Page 33172]]
Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday 10:00 a.m.-6:00
p.m., Sunday CLOSED.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rusty Kestle, Remedial Project
Manager, Superfund Restoration and Sustainability Branch, Superfund
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, phone 404-562-8819, email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
I. Introduction
The EPA announces its intent to delete the Whitehouse Oil Pits
Superfund Site from the NPL and requests public comment on this
proposed action. The NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300
which is the NCP, which the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as the list
of sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health,
welfare, or the environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of
remedial actions financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund).
As described in 40 CFR 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted from the
NPL remain eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions if future
conditions warrant such actions.
The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site
for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the Federal
Register.
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the Whitehouse Oil Pits
Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the deletion criteria.
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
The NCP establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites
from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be
deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In
making such a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will
consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following
criteria have been met:
i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts
five-year reviews (FYRs) to ensure the continued protectiveness of
remedial actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remain at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure. The EPA conducts such FYRs even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.
III. Deletion Procedures
The following procedures apply to deletion of the Site:
(1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice
of Intent to Delete.
(2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today.
(3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, the EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate.
(4) The State, through the FDEP, has concurred with deletion of the
Site from the NPL.
(5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent to
Delete in the Federal Register, a notice is being published in a major
local newspaper, The Florida Times-Union. The newspaper notice
announces the 30-day public comment period concerning the Notice of
Intent to Delete the site from the NPL.
(6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
deletion in the deletion docket and made these items available for
public inspection and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
If comments are received within the 30-day public comment period on
this document, the EPA will evaluate and respond appropriately to the
comments before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the
EPA will prepare a responsiveness summary to address any significant
public comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA
determines it is still appropriate to delete the Site, the Regional
Administrator will publish a final Notice of Deletion in the Federal
Register. Public notices, public submissions and copies of the
responsiveness summary, if prepared, will be made available to
interested parties and in the Site's information repositories listed
above.
Deletion of a site from the NPL does not itself create, alter, or
revoke any individual's rights or obligations. Deletion of a site from
the NPL does not in any way alter the EPA's right to take enforcement
actions, as appropriate. The NPL is designed primarily for
informational purposes and to assist the EPA management. Section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion of a site from the
NPL does not preclude eligibility for future response actions, should
future conditions warrant such actions.
IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion
The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting
the Site from the NPL:
Site Background and History
The Whitehouse Oil Pits Superfund Site is an abandoned waste oil
sludge disposal facility located in Whitehouse, about 10 miles west of
downtown Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. The Site occupies seven
acres west of Chaffee Road, about four tenths of a mile north of U.S.
Highway 90. Between 1958 and 1968, Allied Petro Product, Inc. (Allied),
disposed of contaminated acidic waste oil sludge from their oil
reclaiming operations in seven unlined pits on the Site. Allied
operated the Site as a repository for waste oil sludge and acidic oil
re-refinery byproducts from 1958 until 1968. The waste oil recovery
process used an acid-clay process to form corrosive by-products
including waste-acid tar and spent acidic clays. Allied constructed the
first pits in 1958 to dispose of waste oil sludge and acid from its oil
reclaiming process, and by 1968 the company had constructed and filled
seven pits. The EPA later found that the waste contained Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals, which impacted soil, groundwater, surface water and
sediment. Allied went bankrupt in 1968 and the pits containing wastes
were abandoned; the City of Jacksonville assumed ownership of the Site
by tax default.
In 1968, the diking around pit number 7 ruptured and spilled waste
into the
[[Page 33173]]
McGirts Creek tributary and neighboring private properties. The pit was
backfilled following this incident. The City of Jacksonville recognized
the need to take action to prevent further spread of contamination. The
Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch began building water-oil
separators with limestone filters at the Site, but was not able to
finish construction due to budget issues. Wastewater from the pits
continued to be released into the adjacent wetland area and the McGirts
Creek tributary. These releases resulted in contamination of surface
water and sediment. In 1976, the Jacksonville Mosquito Control Branch
implemented a dike wall reconstruction project at the Site when an
estimated 200,000 gallons of waste oil spilled on the adjacent land and
creek. On June 29, 1976, the EPA Region 4's Environmental Emergency
Branch was contacted by the City of Jacksonville following the 200,000-
gallon oil spill. The EPA began the spill assessment and cleanup of
McGirts Creek under section 311 of the Clean Water Act, spending about
$200,000 in the process. The EPA, in conjunction with the City of
Jacksonville, constructed a treatment system to drain the pits.
After draining water from the pits, the Jacksonville Mosquito
Control Branch took measures to stabilize the ponds. Since the
remaining viscous waste oil sludge would not support heavy construction
equipment, the ponds were backfilled with selected construction debris,
scrap lumber, trees, wood chips and non-degradable wastes. A three-inch
layer of automobile shredder waste was placed on top of these
materials. The liquid portion of the waste oil sludge was pumped off,
mixed with a stabilizing agent, and then used as a backfill/sealer over
the automobile shredder waste. The relatively impervious layer of
stabilizing agent and oil was intended to prevent vertical percolation
of rainwater. The stabilizing agent and oil mixture was covered with
eight to twelve inches of clean earth (mostly sand). After the project
ran out of stabilizing agent, local clay was substituted as a landfill
capping material. The Site was then planted with local grasses and
ditches were constructed to control drainage.
In 1979, monitoring by the City of Jacksonville showed the
continuing release of contaminants to surface water and groundwater
which the City of Jacksonville attempted to address by covering the
surface and sides of the pits and dike with six inches of low-
permeability local clay, followed by twelve inches of topsoil. This
cover was revegetated using local grasses. The drainage was modified to
control leachate seepage into the ditches. The dikes around the pits
were strengthened and drop structures were constructed to control flow
velocity and erosion in the ditches. The modified drainage
configuration diverted surface water away from the landfill, thus
reducing the mechanism for contaminant transport. This second
stabilization project was completed during the summer of 1980.
On December 30,1982 (47 FR 58476), the Site was proposed for
listing on the EPA's NPL. The Site's listing on the NPL was finalized
on September 8, 1983 (48 FR 40865). The Site ID is FLD980602767.
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
In 1983, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER),
which is now referred to as the FDEP, completed a remedial
investigation (RI) under a cooperative agreement with the EPA. The RI
characterized Site wastes and the extent of contamination. The Site's
RI showed contamination of soil, groundwater, surface water, and
sediment with numerous organic compounds, including PAHs and PCBs, and
heavy metals. In 1985, the EPA completed a feasibility study (FS),
which evaluated risk and remedial alternatives for the Site. The risk
assessment indicated that the greater risk was posed by migration of
contaminants into drinking water supplies. Several alternative remedies
were considered: No action; no action with groundwater monitoring;
excavation with variations that included a treatment or offsite
disposal of soil, sludges, and sediment and treatment of groundwater;
and excavation, extraction, and treatment supplemented by construction
of a barrier wall to contain the remaining contaminated media and
prevent its leaching into the groundwater and surface water.
Ultimately, several remedies were required over time to address the
contamination or prior remedy failures. The remedies were selected in a
1985 Record of Decision (ROD), revised in an amended ROD (AROD) in
1992, and then further revised in the 1998 AROD based on additional
investigations and a treatability study. An Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) was issued in 2001.
Selected Remedies
1985 ROD
Based on the findings of the 1985 RI/FS, the EPA issued a ROD on
May 30, 1985. Remedial action objectives (RAOs) defined in the 1985 ROD
included:
1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the
underlying aquitard.
2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.
3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.
4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less
hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the
hazardous pollutants offsite.
5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and
sediments.
The remedy components included in the 1985 ROD were:
1. Installation of a slurry wall around the Site, isolating the
waste.
2. Recovery and treatment of contaminated groundwater within the
walled area, thus contributing to waste isolation.
3. Removal of contaminated sediment from the northeast tributary of
McGirts Creek and placement within the isolation area.
4. Construction of a surface cap over the Site to reduce the flow
of water into the walled area.
The 1985 ROD did not provide a tabulation of specific remediation
goals. However, the goals were generally defined to meet the FDER's
drinking water standards and surface water quality criteria. Where no
cleanup criteria had been established, the cleanup goals were set at
background or minimal risk levels.
1992 AROD
The EPA began but suspended implementation of the 1985 remedy for
several reasons, including failure of the cap, a determination that the
groundwater treatment methodology was inappropriate for the Site,
discovery that the analysis of the shallow aquifer was unreliable, and
realization that the operations and maintenance costs were grossly
underestimated. Moreover, in 1986, Congress amended CERCLA by passing
the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which stressed
the importance of permanent remedies. As a result, the EPA reevaluated
the 1985 remedy and began to search for alternatives that would
permanently and significantly reduce the mobility, toxicity, and volume
of hazardous substances at the Site. The EPA conducted additional
studies between 1989 and 1992. These studies included a baseline risk
assessment, a supplemental feasibility study, and a treatability study
in 1991 to examine a treatment train of soils washing, biological
treatment and stabilization.
[[Page 33174]]
The studies led to the EPA's issuance of an AROD on June 16, 1992 (the
1992 AROD). Under the 1992 AROD, the cleanup objectives were to prevent
current and future exposure to contaminated groundwater.
The remedy components included in the 1992 AROD were:
1. Excavation of contaminated waste pits.
2. Separation of construction debris, stumps, etc., from
contaminated soils and steam cleaning prior to offsite disposal.
3. Volume reduction by soils washing.
4. Biotreatment to biologically degrade wash water contaminants.
5. Stabilization/solidification of biotreated material exceeding
cleanup criteria.
6. On-site disposal of washed soils and stabilization/
solidification of contaminant fines and sludge.
7. Extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater using
activated carbon and chemical precipitation, with discharge to the
northeast tributary of McGirts Creek.
8. Installation and maintenance of a six-inch vegetative cover over
the excavated area.
9. Installation and maintenance of a fence around the Site during
remedial activities.
10. Implementation of institutional controls (ICs), including deed
restrictions.
The 1992 AROD included contingencies if groundwater recovery and
treatment were determined to be ineffective. Contingencies included:
1. Containment measures involving engineering controls or long-term
gradient controls.
2. Waiver of chemical-specific ARARs for the aquifer based on the
technical impracticability of achieving further contaminant reduction.
3. Institutional controls for groundwater.
4. Continued monitoring of on-site and off-site wells.
Cleanup goals were developed for soils and groundwater in the 1992
AROD. Following the signing of the 1992 AROD, the EPA issued special
notice letters to initiate negotiations with the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs). Because a settlement could not be reached,
the EPA proceeded with a fund-lead remedial design. During the design
phase for the 1992 AROD remedy, the EPA discovered most of the
components of the treatment train identified for source materials would
not work. For example, lead concentrations and pH levels encountered in
the waste sludge would be toxic to bacteria, rendering biological
treatment ineffective. In April 1994, the EPA and the PRPs, the
Whitehouse Remedial Action Group (WRAG), signed an Administrative Order
on Consent (AOC) under which the PRPs conducted the additional studies.
The results of those studies indicated that additional treatability and
feasibility studies were required. In January1995, the WRAG agreed to
modify the AOC with the EPA to perform the additional work. After
completing these additional studies, the WRAG prepared and finalized
the supplemental treatability and feasibility study (FS) in July 1997.
1998 AROD
Based on the treatability and feasibility study findings in July
1997, the EPA issued an AROD in September 1998 to incorporate elements
of the contingency remedy in the 1992 AROD, as well as elements of the
original 1985 ROD. The 1998 AROD addressed all contaminated media at
the Site by containing the onsite waste sludge, contaminated soils,
wetlands, sediment and groundwater. The remedy's function was to
isolate the Site as a source of groundwater and surface water
contamination and reduce the risks associated with exposure to the
contaminated materials.
The major components of the selected remedy included:
1. In-situ stabilization/solidification treatment of lifts 1
(topsoil and clay) and 2 (thin layer of shredded foam rubber and
plastic overlying a layer of sawdust, wood chips, dimensional lumber,
debris and silty sand) with a geogrid to enhance structural stability.
2. Installation of a slurry wall (slurry wall or geosynthetic sheet
pile wall) to isolate and contain contaminated soils, sludge, wetlands,
sediments and groundwater.
3. Installation of a lime curtain inside the containment system to
adjust groundwater pH.
4. Construction of a low permeability cap over the contained area
that meets Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) closure
requirements under 40 CFR 264.228(a)(2).
5. Realignment of the McGirts Creek tributary to optimize the area
of groundwater containment.
6. Extension of the municipal water supply to residents along
Machelle Drive and Chaffee Road and plugging of private supply wells.
7. Installation of a permanent security fence around the
containment area and installation and maintenance of appropriate storm
water management controls.
8. Monitored natural attenuation of contaminated groundwater
outside the containment system.
9. Sampling of offsite surface soils and downstream surface water
and sediment during design to determine if additional measures are
necessary.
10. Imposition of deed restrictions to control future land and
groundwater use.
The AROD established cleanup goals for groundwater and soils based
on federal or state primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or risk
based numbers. These cleanup goals and the source of the cleanup level
can be found Tables 8-1 and 8-2 of the Final Risk Assessment, dated
September 1, 1991, and Table 2-1 of the Final Remedial Action Report.
Soils contaminants of concern addressed by the remedy include organic
compounds (Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Bis (2-Ethyl Hexyl) Phthalate,
Chlorobenzene, 1,4-Dichlorochlorobenzene, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate,
Methylene Chloride, Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) 1260, 2-
Methylnaphthalene, Naphthalene, Phenol, Tetrachloroethene, Toluene and
Trichloroethene) and inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium,
Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead and Nickel). Groundwater contaminants
of concern include organic compounds (Acetone, Benzene, Benzo(a)pyrene,
Bis (2-Ehtyl Hexyl) Phthalate, Carbon Disulfide, Di-N-Butyl Phthalate,
Ethylbenzene, Methyl Ethyl Ketone, 3/4 Methylphenol, Naphthalene, 2-
Methylnaphthalene, Phenol, Toluene, Trichloroethene and Xylene) and
inorganic compounds (Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Manganese, Nickel, Selenium, Vanadium and Zinc).
2001 ESD
An ESD was issued in 2001 to remove the lime curtain from the
selected remedy due to concerns that it might adversely affect the
sodium based slurry wall. The ESD also increased the size of the slurry
wall, size of the cap, and area of the tributary to be realigned based
on the discovery of additional contamination.
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) established in the 1985 ROD and
adopted in the 1998 AROD address groundwater, surface water, sludge,
sediment and soils. The 2001 ESD did not alter the original RAOs. The
RAOs include:
1. Prevent further migration of contaminated groundwater into the
underlying aquitard.
2. Prevent contamination of the local drinking water supply.
[[Page 33175]]
3. Reduce or eliminate migration of contamination to surface water.
4. Eliminate the source sludge, treat the source sludge to a less
hazardous or non-hazardous state, or contain the release of the
hazardous pollutants off site.
5. Reduce or eliminate the migration of contaminated soils and
sediments.
Response Actions
Response actions are discussed above. Construction of the remedy
began in 2003 and was completed in May 2007 with the finalization of
the Remedial Action Report. The City of Jacksonville, now the owner of
the property comprising the Site, entered into a restrictive covenant
with FDEP on January 27, 2011. This institutional control restricts
activities on the property and the future use of the property.
Cleanup Levels
Groundwater sampling events have occurred at the Site since August
2006 when the first year of operations maintenance and monitoring
(OM&M) began and have continued over the last ten years under the
thirty-year OM&M Plan. The groundwater levels are determined inside the
barrier wall and groundwater levels and monitoring data are collected
at monitoring wells outside of the barrier wall. Contaminants 1,4-
dichlorobenzene, chlorobenzene, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene,
di-n-butyl phthalate, and PCB-1260 were sampled for during the first
quarter of groundwater sampling. The sampling verified that these
contaminants were not found at detectable levels outside of the barrier
wall and would not require monitoring during future sampling. Manganese
has been detected at levels slightly above the State of Florida
secondary MCL of 50 ppb upgradient and downgradient of the contaminant
source. Therefore, the elevated manganese levels are not thought to be
Site related. Monitoring for manganese will continue and action will be
taken if levels continue to be elevated and are determined to be Site
related. All other groundwater COCs were monitored regularly over the
last ten years and their detected levels were below cleanup levels;
this includes groundwater arsenic concentrations which have largely
been below 1 [micro]g/L. The highest reading was less than 2 [micro]g/L
which is well below the current MCL of 10 [micro]g/L. Groundwater is
the only media that is monitored at the Site because the remaining
contamination in soils and sediment is contained within a barrier wall
and cap that prevents lateral contaminant migration.
Operations, Monitoring and Maintenance (OM&M)
The OM&M Plan for the Site was approved by the EPA and OM&M
activities began in July 2006, and continue to this day. The scope of
the OM&M Plan included monthly Site inspections to monitor the
following components, except for passive gas management (quarterly) and
wetland planting monitoring (semi-annual):
1. Closure cap.
2. Passive gas management system.
3. Storm water management system.
4. Created wetland planting areas.
5. Site security system.
6. Groundwater monitoring system.
In addition to inspecting the remedial components above, the cap is
mowed on a quarterly basis. Originally, water levels of wells inside
and outside of the barrier wall were monitored on a monthly basis to
evaluate the performance of the barrier wall. Groundwater wells were
sampled semi-annually for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Semi-
Volatile Compounds (SVOCs) and metals. In April 2013, the EPA and FDEP
agreed that sampling could be limited to metals. Now, the monitoring
program consists of semi-annual monitoring of 23 wells for metals only
and semi-annual water level monitoring of 23 wells and 6 piezometers.
At this time, all sampling data are below cleanup criteria. The Site is
owned by the City of Jacksonville, which is part of the WRAG PRP group.
ICs are maintained by the PRP group through OM&M inspections. City/
county zoning and permitting requirements for land and groundwater use
in the area add another layer of protection.
Five-Year Reviews (FYR)
Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq., and the
EPA's FYR Guidance, statutory FYRs are required for the Whitehouse Oil
Pits Superfund Site because the completed remedy does not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. The first FYR was completed on
November 13, 2008, which was five years after onsite construction
activities began. The second FYR was signed on May 7, 2014 and
indicated that the remedy was still protective of human health and the
environment. A multilayered cap covers all impacted soils; a barrier
wall contains the contaminated groundwater; and the municipal water
supply was extended to residents who live near the Site. The cap,
together with the containment provided by the slurry wall, prevents
contamination from entering the groundwater and migrating offsite into
the soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment.
The 2014 FYR stated the remedy was protective only in the short
term and included two issues and recommendations. The Operations,
Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) Plan did not include contingency
activities to address groundwater overtopping the containment area and
internal flow gradients had not been adequately monitored to assess the
structural integrity of the containment system. Recommendations were
made to continue to monitor metals concentrations in the groundwater
and to modify the OM&M Plan. The OM&M Plan was modified in June 2015 to
include more specific contingency actions to address groundwater
overtopping the containment area and include monitoring of groundwater
flow gradients inside and outside the barrier wall to assess the
effectiveness of the containment remedy. Monitoring of groundwater for
metals continues. Required actions were completed to make the Site
protective of human health and the environment. However, the EPA does
not consider groundwater overtopping the containment area to be a
justifiable concern for several reasons: (1) The average depth of the
barrier wall was designed to extend through the full depth of the
surficial unconfined aquifer and key into the underlying semi-confining
strata (estimated to be 40 ft.), thus, there can be no lateral or
vertical movement of groundwater into the containment area; (2) the
entire Site is covered with a multi-layered cap system with a
permeability of at least 1E-07 intended to shed any rainwater falling
on the cap; (3) the cap system has a network of internal drains which
carry any flows penetrating the cap to the ditch system surrounding the
cap; and (4) there is no evidence that groundwater levels within the
barrier wall are trending up. The Site will continue to be monitored as
part of the OM&M Plan and the next FYR is due May 2019.
Community Involvement
Community involvement activities were undertaken throughout the
thirty-year history of the Site in the form of public meetings, FYR
interviews and Site update mail-outs. There are currently no major
community concerns about the Site. The FYR community involvement
process will continue to monitor any potential community concerns.
The residents of the surrounding neighborhood stated in the 2013
Site interviews that they are concerned about periodic flooding that
occurs in
[[Page 33176]]
their yards after heavy rains. However, the main factor that is
contributing to flooding in the McGirts Creek floodplain is not Site
related; the construction of dams by beavers in McGirts Creek is
responsible for flooding problems in the area. In the past, the beaver
dams were removed by the Site contractors as a courtesy, but has never
been part of the actual OM&M Plan requirements. The beaver dam issue
has been communicated to the residences of the surrounding neighborhood
and the residents are responsible for taking any action to remove
beaver dams in the future.
Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion in the NCP
The implemented remedy achieves the degree of cleanup and
protection specified in the RODs for the Site for all pathways of
exposure. The selected remedy at the Site is protective of human health
and the environment because all exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks are being controlled. Contamination remaining onsite
is being contained to the capped portion. The barrier walls were
designed and constructed to contain the contamination and prevent any
lateral or vertical movement of groundwater in or out of the
containment area; ICs are in place in the form of land and groundwater
use restrictions. These ICs are in the form of a Declaration of
Restrictive Covenant executed between FDEP and the City of
Jacksonville. This IC was executed on the 2nd of February 2011, and
restricts activities on the property and the future use of the
property. All selected remedial and removal actions, remedial action
objectives, and associated cleanup goals are consistent with the EPA
policy and guidance; the EPA has followed the procedures required by 40
CFR 300.425(e) and these actions, objectives and goals have all been
achieved and, therefore, no further Superfund response is needed to
protect human health and the environment.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(d); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 13626,
77 FR 56749, 3 CFR, 2013 Comp., p. 306; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3
CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.,
p. 193.
Dated: July 3, 2018.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2018-15242 Filed 7-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P